The debate "Should religious groups be allowed to endorse and support politicians" was started by
May 4, 2017, 7:19 am.
21 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 15 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 10 arguments, M3phisto posted 4 arguments, neveralone posted 7 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff, M3phisto, thereal, invincible_01, wmd, Ematio, TimRSA, lilgamer84, neveralone, The13yearoldconservative and 11 visitors agree.
makson, zediraw, Mrjudge, esuth_999, MrLuke, SirIntegra and 9 visitors disagree.
as far as I've seen though the small churches are good. they would not launder. they do actively try to stop corruption but sometimes take the wrong approach to people. idk about other churches but mine have a lot of people who are considered elderly. they did not live in a time when all this stuff just sprang up. now I may not condone a lot but if there is a safer way I would prefer it. but for above Christians they have lived a life where none of this kind of stuff was seen and thus don't know how to handle it. they see it as an attack on their way of life. it's not but that is their mindset. if we can fix that which will take time then we would be able to work out a deal that benefits both sides.
idk on the tax thing. the churches usually get 10 percent of people's money since that's what God asks. now this might also be (for corrupt churches) to do money laundering. but this money is supposed to go where the church needs it most. now u can also donate to missions and other such projects but I don't think we should tax that since it's wholly just to help people. now when we talk about big churches with tv pointed and golden doors u can tax the crud out of them asking for everybody's? money every five seconds. they have become a business rather than a church
I do agree this impedes their freedom of speech, and they should be allowed to preach whatever they want.
I do feel they should continue to be restricted in donating money to campaigns, as long as they retain their tax exempt status but can do whatever if they surrender it, because that will just turn into money laundering for campaign finance.
they also can't rent amphitheaters with tax exempt money, but are free to invite the candidates to their stage if they wish.
I want to protect their speech without creating loopholes to pass unamerican ideas.
it is a problem I have seen plenty of times. churches with closed doors. we wish to help them and that's the challenge. such places view any disagreement with them as evil and immediately close off their hearts. this the challenge of incorporating new (technically old) ideas. we need to fix this for sure. but as a nation even if we backed several canadites they still have to run off their idea and beliefs.
the reason the founders separated church from state is because it was insanely corrupt and power hungry.
just because you have a, imo, more enlightened view of Christianity, and I believe the letter of the bible agrees with you. but throughout history AND to this day, Christian leadership continues to promote laws that discriminate against groups they disagree with, pass laws that block cities from passing laws protecting these groups, refuse to help people in war torn nations, and in general do the exactly opposite of love they neighbor.
that's the leadership, but the people aren't much better. most of them just echo their leaders, and my experience debating with Christians here and in other places supports this. You are one of the very few that said "I don't support their lifestyles and will support them making better choices but am in no place to legally dictate their behavior" (not exact words).
When we talk about religion in government, we don't mean an objective bible, but people who have repeatedly disappointed us. You do not represent these people, you are a minority, and when discussing such things as Christians are against corruption, dont impose your view on all Christians but just them based on their views and actions.
Christianity is against corruption, but Christians have consistently supported and created corruption. and continue to do so til this day.
neither of those are true. if ur looking to get corruption out who better than the ones who try to make every day of their life free of all corruption. on religion and state that is taken out of context constantly. it was simply stated to some Muslims (I think) that the gov. won't be able to interfere with their religion. it said nothing of the other way around. also u are directly going agaisnt freedom of speech.
no they should not as that would be corrupt and contradicts American constitution that draws a separation between politics and religion
I knew he would more than likely tank that's why when in primaries I hoped we would get someone else. but we got him and it turned into which canadite sucked less. idk about Bernie but Hilary as u have said urself wasn't a good choice either. we were all played in a way. we had to pick the lesser evil. we as a nation is broke. I hoped that with the gov. watching him and making sure he doesn't do something stupid he would at least take out a chunk of said debt.... they aren't and that is where I was an idiot u could say. I figured they would do the right thing instead of the one that will keep them in office.
that aside I'm curious about the numerous0 disagrees. I'm assuming they are liberals lining up along party lines. I'm curious as to their argument or is it just anti anything the other side wants?
lol this debate turned to Trump vs Bernie
so the entirety of the reason behind your support of trump is because he is a business man? what does that mean?
I'm not going to go into his abilities, he is definitely successful, but so was Mark McGuire when he shattered babe Ruth's record... but babe Ruth didn't need to take steroids. results are not the only things that matter.
the fact that he is businessman is not in dispute, but the quality and methods were routinely and consciously ignored.
seriously, how does just pointing out his profession demonstrate any form of caution? you (generally just under half of america, but I'm assuming including you personally as well) were gullible and were played. it's fine, it happens. the biggest fault is not in being had, but denying it afterwards, or in your case, summing it up to bad luck and the belief that you did everything in your power to get him. which is a lie, less to me, then to yourself.
his history was not a mystery, it was an active choice to ignore all the warning signs that people would have absolutely considered if they truly were cautious.
I saw a lot of bad traits in him but he was a business man. if he would focus on Americas money problems he might be able to do good. it's not a lot to hope for but we didn't get much of a canadite.
no! you don't not vote! you think the establishment doesn't have it's circle of allies to reelect them if people abstain from voting? your just giving up your power and your voice. you vote for the opposition, or you become the opposition, or nothing will change.
and propaganda is not a good thing. if someone is good at propaganda, that is not a good thing for you. it means they are lying to you and they think you are dumb enough to fall for it.
the point of mentioning Bernie is not because I believe he would be better, but because he also represented change. and whether you agree with his solutions or not, looking at his history you can tell he will work hard to serve the people as opposed to himself and his friends.
hopeful but cautious how? what cautions did you take? what in his history gave you any hope?
Trump voters just blindly believed what he said without examining him at all. that's not caution, that's gullibility.
Yes but im speaking about a realistic approach. We could simply not vote, its a fact. But you'll never be able to convince enough people to not vote. Because politicians and other lobbyies will also do propaganda to convince them to continue voting. You'll have to win the propaganda game first, which is the same as lobbying. Actually, in order to change this and bring regulations on this you have to convince the people (to not vote or vote for the right politicians) and the politicians (to pass an effective law than brings some improvement).
As for Bernie, you cant know how he would be as a president. If he kept losing there's a reason.. he doesnt know how to propaganda well.
so that's why u picked this. just heard about Trump doing this. while this is obviously a way of keeping our trust I hope we use it to do good. right now from all he's done I would say this is the best.
many did. I personally was hopeful but cautious. idk about Bernie but a lot of Republicans wanted someone else.
it's one thing to want change, it's another to not consider what kind of change. it's also another thing to trust someone's words and ignore their history.
us on the left wanted change, in the form of a politician who spent his entire life working for the people, Bernie.
we warned you about trump and his history of being an awesome human being (sarcasm), but yall were to busy choking on spoon fed propaganda.
not all change is in the right direction.
"And this is complicated because we people cant do much about it... we would have to create an organisation to lobby for a law that regulates lobbying. Which not much politicians will agree with."
or we can just completely abandon them come election season. money is all good an all, but votes is what decides if they even have the job.
that's why people voted Trump. though I hope he will do something but if his 100 days show anything he will make it worse
This system.. this shit is so solid that you'll need a freaking bulldozer to break it down.
Its the pull.. but its also the kid that needs some changes. Politicians who are easily bought or liars arent really politicians but just puppets. And this is complicated because we people cant do much about it... we would have to create an organisation to lobby for a law that regulates lobbying. Which not much politicians will agree with. (And which could also be fought against not only by politicians but also by other lobbyies who dont want to lose their grip)
well if we fix the pull then I see no reason they shouldn't.
If a religious organisation chooses to lobby politicians, they only use the tools that politicians gave us. Dont forget that where are religious lobby, there are also counter-religious ones. And in this fight its all about who got more money and influence to get what law he wants to get passed from the politicians. That's why a real solution would be full disclosure. Which can ome with conditions like yours and many other like: if you've commited crimes you cant lobby. Politicians are like a kid that everyone tries to constantly pull on their sides. Some have more power to pull than others.. and this is what's unjust and unconstitutionnal.
Well, i also think that. Lobbying should be forced to be transparent. Show the people how much money you receive. From who? For what reasons? Show us how you use it? What part is for campaigning, what part of it is for personal use, what part of it goes to the gov?
And some regulations like you said. You should be established in the said local region. Should be allowed to endorse politicians with a certain limit to how much u give. Politicians should openly and honestly show who endorses them, to understand what he is going to accomplish once he becomes what he aspires to.
But all of those are up to the politicians to agree and pass a law. We need to reach a certain point where politicians accept to open up and become more responsible about what they do and how they do it.
I think lobbying should be banned because as it is used, it is unconstitutional.
think about it, our representatives in Congress don't represent the nation as a whole but their local districts. corporations absolutely have a right to lobby THEIR reprentatives based on where they are based, but not EVERY representative regardless of how much money they give or how expensive a lunch they buy.
This is lobbying. This technique was always used trough history and is used now more than ever. Normally, the state's laws put some regulations on it. Large multinationals have lobby sections in each state but this practice is done by alot of organisations. Multinationals, groupements of sorts, all kind of social movements. Even people from other countries (Sarkozy had some trouble when people found out about money he received from Khadafi) Basically anyone can lobby and influence politicians. Religious associations have that right too.
I agree, but how much of a treasure trove of wealth do religious groups have when compared to, let's say, corporations who are constantly voicing their opinions and directly lobbying for their interests.
doing a hard, excessive separation of church and state was extremely important when the church held world wide seats of power, but I think we can give them the ability to speak now that they no longer own governments across the world.
well not to doesn't seem right because ur not allowing a certain group to promote people like everyone else gets to.
on the other hand some groups have treasure troves of money that they can throw in.